Once there are reasons for the AO to believe, whether such reasons originate out of the record already scrutinized or otherwise, he shall be within his competence to initiate the re-assessment proceedings. The formation of belief by the AO must always be tentative and not a firm or final conclusion as the latter will negate the very object of giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee as it will amount to post-decisional hearing.
On a plain reading of the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act, it is amply clear that the said provisions would be attracted when loans or deposits in excess or twenty thousand rupees are made or repaid. Thus, a basic precondition for falling within the ambit of the said provisions is the existence of a loan or deposit.
The award under the Motor Vehicle Act is like a decree of the court. It do not come within the definition of income as mentioned in Section 194A(1) read with Section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act. Proceedings regarding claim under Motor Vehicle Act are in the nature of a garnishee proceedings under which the MACT has a right to attach the judgment debt payable by the insurance company.
It is no doubt true that the decisions in HMT (Supra), Sun Pharmaceuticals (supra) and Gemini Arts (supra) dealt with fact situations where the assessee had obtained long lease, and where the Court found the down payment as lumpsum premium to be a real advance rental payment which therefore qualify as revenue expenditure. At the same time, this Court is also aware of the fact that in Madras Auto services (supra), the leased land contained a dilapidated structure, and since it could not be used by the assessee,
Assessee is a non-resident company. It entered into a contract with an Indian Company, but agreed to provide administrative and personnel support outside India. It noticed that the payment, pursuant to the contract, was received outside India. The Tribunal held that the said contract did not show that the administrative and the support services provided under the contract were absolutely necessary for providing offshore construction and installation activities for Tapti and Panna field development. The Tribunal found that there was nothing to establish direct or immediate nexus between the services rendered in India and administrative and support services provided outside India. The Tribunal, accordingly, held that such income would not attract the provisions of Section 5(2), read with Section 9(1)(i) of the Act.
Assessee had received a gift of Rs. 22,76,750/-in U.S. dollars from an NRI, N.Mohan and the assessee had filed two confirmation letters, one in December 2006 and another on 10-07-2007 given by the donor stating that he had gifted the above amount to the assessee, that the assessee is his close relative, that he is a man of means owning a software company of a net worth of US $ 25 million, that he had gifted during the year 2002-03 Rs. 2.00 crores to rebuild a government school,
Under Section 220(6) of the Act, where an appeal was pending against the assessment order, the assessee was not to be treated as an assessee in default in respect of the amount in dispute in appeal, in the discretion of the Assessing Officer on such conditions as he may think fit to impose. The Assessing Officer is, thus, required to pass a reasoned speaking order.
In the present case, however, we find that the second deposit of the same amount on clearance of the same goods did not amount to deposit of excise duty and was a pure mistaken deposit of an amount with the Government which the revenue cannot retain or withhold. Such claim, therefore, would not fall within section 11B of the Act.
The investment with the sister-concerns had no nexus to the assessee’s business activities. They were merely invested for the purpose of earning interest. The assessee has not even established that one of its business activities was to advance loans to third parties and/or to invest its funds and that it was a mere coincidence that over the years, all the advances were made to and the investments were made in their sister-concerns.
Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that unrealised export turnover should be included in the Total Turnover while it is not treated as Export Turnover for purposes of computing the allowable deduction under Section 80HHC ?
